amiable:Lol at all the Zimmerman fluffers citing the "evidence" as the reason for his acquittal. It has much more to do with Florida's mind-numbingly insane self-defense laws which place the burden of proof on the state to show that self defense didn't occur. In practically every other state and country with a self defense statute, self-defense is an affirmative defense, where the burden lies on the defendant to show that he or she acted in self-defense.

This ruling has basically given the greenlight to every yahoo in Florida to shoot someone in private and claim they "were in fear for their life." Protip: I would not try that while being black.

If by "practically every other state" you mean Ohio and only Ohio, then yes.

"In 49 of the 50 states, once the defense introducing any evidence of possible self-defense, the prosecution must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. "

MarkEC:According to the J4T crowd, the next time someone cuts me of in traffic I have a right to beat the crap out of them at the next light and they have no right to defend themselves.They don't realize that GZ's following TM amounts to the same thing as cutting someone off, or flipping the bird. It's wrong, but not criminal. If you take enough offense to that action and retaliate with violence, you are the one that crosses the line into criminality. Fights in the real world do not follow the Marquess of Queensbury rules, so they should be avoided. Ask yourself: Who had the last chance to avoid the confrontation?

You must live in Bizzaro Land. Here in America, if an adult male is following you at night, you are going to be A) Mugged, B) Raped, C) Murdered, or D) Some combination of the above (or all of the above for extra fun!). Our streets are not safe. That's why 'neighborhood watches' exist and people are told not to go outside at night. Cutting someone off or flipping the bird isn't even close.

PsiChick:Here in America, if an adult male is following you at night, you are going to be A) Mugged, B) Raped, C) Murdered, or D) Some combination of the above (or all of the above for extra fun!). Our streets are not safe.

So it's perfectly reasonable once you are out of sight of that person to wait for 2 minutes instead of going home, and then get into a fight with them? If TM had thought that GZ was out looking for trouble, giving it to him is not a reasonable action. Going home and calling the police or telling his father is.

MarkEC:PsiChick: Here in America, if an adult male is following you at night, you are going to be A) Mugged, B) Raped, C) Murdered, or D) Some combination of the above (or all of the above for extra fun!). Our streets are not safe.

So it's perfectly reasonable once you are out of sight of that person to wait for 2 minutes instead of going home, and then get into a fight with them? If TM had thought that GZ was out looking for trouble, giving it to him is not a reasonable action. Going home and calling the police or telling his father is.

A) Wasn't it proved in the court that he ran away?

B) Even if not, have you ever met a seventeen-year-old boy? Of course he turned around and tried to fight. He thought he was a superhero, because teenagers have underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex (the part of your brain that says 'don't do this, dumbass'), which, curiously, is also why we still consider them 'children'.

B) Even if not, have you ever met a seventeen-year-old boy? Of course he turned around and tried to fight. He thought he was a superhero, because teenagers have underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex (the part of your brain that says 'don't do this, dumbass'), which, curiously, is also why we still consider them 'children'.

His status as a child vs. adult, has no bearing on what transpired that night. A reasonable person cannot be expected to think "oh this attacker might be under 18" so I shouldn't use deadly force to defend myself. His being a testosterone hopped-up teen with an underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex may have been his downfall, but there are many cases of much older males having that same symptom. The ITG's on Fark prove that when they claim GZ should have been more of a man and fought like a man instead of using his gun.

MarkEC:PsiChick: A) Wasn't it proved in the court that he ran away?Exactly, and had almost 2 minutes out of sight of GZ.

B) Even if not, have you ever met a seventeen-year-old boy? Of course he turned around and tried to fight. He thought he was a superhero, because teenagers have underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex (the part of your brain that says 'don't do this, dumbass'), which, curiously, is also why we still consider them 'children'.

His status as a child vs. adult, has no bearing on what transpired that night. A reasonable person cannot be expected to think "oh this attacker might be under 18" so I shouldn't use deadly force to defend myself. His being a testosterone hopped-up teen with an underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex may have been his downfall, but there are many cases of much older males having that same symptom. The ITG's on Fark prove that when they claim GZ should have been more of a man and fought like a man instead of using his gun.

So Martin ran away, was pursued, and made the choice to turn and stand his ground so he wasn't tackled from behind? I stand corrected--that is exactly what he should have done, because the noise would hopefully attract help. Smart kid.

However, Martin's statusas a child does matter, because when Zimmerman ignored his firearm training, a 911 dispatcher, and basic common sense to play hero, he killed a child, and in America child-killing is worse than killing an adult, as in most societies. It makes what Zimmerman did worse. There is a reason you get trained when you have a CCW.

PsiChick:So Martin ran away, was pursued, and made the choice to turn and stand his ground so he wasn't tackled from behind? I stand corrected--that is exactly what he should have done, because the noise would hopefully attract help. Smart kid.

You missed the part where TM was out of sight of GZ for 2 minutes. Therefore there was no "stand your ground". Do you really think GZ went looking TM 2 minutes later and found him magically?

However, Martin's statusas a child does matter, because when Zimmerman ignored his firearm training, a 911 dispatcher, and basic common sense to play hero, he killed a child, and in America child-killing is worse than killing an adult, as in most societies. It makes what Zimmerman did worse. There is a reason you get trained when you have a CCW.

Are you really going down that road that he "ignored" the dispatcher? Go listen to the audio recording again. He did exactly what the dispatcher suggested, and stopped! Unless you think TM slowed to a snails pace and GZ was still following him at the same snails pace while still talking to the dispatcher for another minute and a half, your story falls apart.

PsiChick:So Martin ran away, was pursued, and made the choice to turn and stand his ground so he wasn't tackled from behind? I stand corrected--that is exactly what he should have done, because the noise would hopefully attract help. Smart kid.

The story on the left is factual, the story on the right is editorialized as all hell. Scott witnessed a crime in progress, confronted the criminals on his front lawn, was charged by one of them and killed his attacker. Zimmerman saw no crime in progress. He stalked Martin and left his car to chase him down after being told not to do so by the police.

Those in Zimmerman's corner believe that everything that took place prior to the physical confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman is irrelevant and all that matters is that in the course of a fist fight which Zimmerman was losing, he shot and killed Martin. The rest of us believe that Zimmerman's actions led directly to the confrontation and his failure to act responsibly led to Martin's death and that he should have to pay for that negligence.

The two cases are not comparable.

Except, in the latter case you mention, "Zimmerman's actions led directly to the confrontation and his failure to act responsibly led to Martin's death," is not applicable, by law.

Deal with it.

Exactly. He didn't invite Treyvon Martin to beat his ass just by the simple act of following him. Whoever threw the first punch was ultimately at fault for escalating the confrontation.

If, as a 17 year old, I was being followed through my neighborhood by someone I didn't recognize with an unknown intent, I might have felt threatened, and I might have thrown a punch or tried to disable my pursuer in order to get away.

And, if, as a 17 year old, you threw a punch at someone following you in a car, or following you on foot, YOU would be breaking the law and YOU would be going to jail. Again, following someone is NOT illegal, what part of this don't you understand?

Frederick:PsiChick: So Martin ran away, was pursued, and made the choice to turn and stand his ground so he wasn't tackled from behind? I stand corrected--that is exactly what he should have done, because the noise would hopefully attract help. Smart kid.

In what universe does Zimmerman catch and tackle a fleeing Martin?

If Martin wanted to get away from Zimmerman he could have.

Re-read what I posted, please. No, Martin was not caught from behind. That does not mean the situation was not highly threatening, threatening enough so Martin was damn well justified in defending himself. As I said, America's streets are not safe. The law recognizes that self-defense requires a dangerous situation...and guess what this was.

PsiChick:Re-read what I posted, please. No, Martin was not caught from behind. That does not mean the situation was not highly threatening, threatening enough so Martin was damn well justified in defending himself. As I said, America's streets are not safe. The law recognizes that self-defense requires a dangerous situation...and guess what this was.

HBK:PsiChick: Re-read what I posted, please. No, Martin was not caught from behind. That does not mean the situation was not highly threatening, threatening enough so Martin was damn well justified in defending himself. As I said, America's streets are not safe. The law recognizes that self-defense requires a dangerous situation...and guess what this was.

A version created wholly by your imagination?

Tell you what, if some random guy ever decides to follow you in the middle of the night, we'll be sure to let the cops know when they find you that you thought you weren't allowed to fight back until the other guy did something.

PsiChick:Frederick: PsiChick: So Martin ran away, was pursued, and made the choice to turn and stand his ground so he wasn't tackled from behind? I stand corrected--that is exactly what he should have done, because the noise would hopefully attract help. Smart kid.

In what universe does Zimmerman catch and tackle a fleeing Martin?

If Martin wanted to get away from Zimmerman he could have.

Re-read what I posted, please. No, Martin was not caught from behind. That does not mean the situation was not highly threatening, threatening enough so Martin was damn well justified in defending himself. As I said, America's streets are not safe. The law recognizes that self-defense requires a dangerous situation...and guess what this was.

I dont think you understand my point. If Martin was truly frightened of Zimmerman following him, and Martin is running away -isnt the best course of action for Martin to simply keep running? We can quite logically conclude that Zimmerman is not going to catch a fleeing Martin.

It needs to be explained, IMO, how a confrontation ensued if both were on foot and Martin was running away. Think about it.

PsiChick:HBK: PsiChick: Re-read what I posted, please. No, Martin was not caught from behind. That does not mean the situation was not highly threatening, threatening enough so Martin was damn well justified in defending himself. As I said, America's streets are not safe. The law recognizes that self-defense requires a dangerous situation...and guess what this was.

A version created wholly by your imagination?

Tell you what, if some random guy ever decides to follow you in the middle of the night, we'll be sure to let the cops know when they find you that you thought you weren't allowed to fight back until the other guy did something.

I dont think you understand the meanings of word you use.

Follow you =/= fightingfight back = defending against a fightdid something = fighting

If someone is following you, only, then you cannot fight back -you can only fight first.If someone is fighting you then you are defending yourself if you fight back.

Frederick:PsiChick: HBK: PsiChick: Re-read what I posted, please. No, Martin was not caught from behind. That does not mean the situation was not highly threatening, threatening enough so Martin was damn well justified in defending himself. As I said, America's streets are not safe. The law recognizes that self-defense requires a dangerous situation...and guess what this was.

A version created wholly by your imagination?

Tell you what, if some random guy ever decides to follow you in the middle of the night, we'll be sure to let the cops know when they find you that you thought you weren't allowed to fight back until the other guy did something.

I dont think you understand the meanings of word you use.

Follow you =/= fightingfight back = defending against a fightdid something = fighting

If someone is following you, only, then you cannot fight back -you can only fight first.If someone is fighting you then you are defending yourself if you fight back.

My point here is that, in a dangerous situation, it is totally understandable to turn and stand your ground if you don't think you'll make it--and if you're discussing a seventeen-year-old male, they are not capable of realizing they are not superheroes anyway. So yes, what Martin did was reasonable--and in that situation, you might end up doing the same thing, because running doesn't always work.

PsiChick:My point here is that, in a dangerous situation, it is totally understandable to turn and stand your ground if you don't think you'll make it--and if you're discussing a seventeen-year-old male, they are not capable of realizing they are not superheroes anyway. So yes, what Martin did was reasonable--and in that situation, you might end up doing the same thing, because running doesn't always work.

Yeah, sometimes its hard to remember left foot, then right foot, then left foot again. Sometimes that right foot wants to do two in a row. That's where I always run into trouble.

HBK:PsiChick: My point here is that, in a dangerous situation, it is totally understandable to turn and stand your ground if you don't think you'll make it--and if you're discussing a seventeen-year-old male, they are not capable of realizing they are not superheroes anyway. So yes, what Martin did was reasonable--and in that situation, you might end up doing the same thing, because running doesn't always work.

Yeah, sometimes its hard to remember left foot, then right foot, then left foot again. Sometimes that right foot wants to do two in a row. That's where I always run into trouble.

HBK:PsiChick: My point here is that, in a dangerous situation, it is totally understandable to turn and stand your ground if you don't think you'll make it--and if you're discussing a seventeen-year-old male, they are not capable of realizing they are not superheroes anyway. So yes, what Martin did was reasonable--and in that situation, you might end up doing the same thing, because running doesn't always work.

Yeah, sometimes its hard to remember left foot, then right foot, then left foot again. Sometimes that right foot wants to do two in a row. That's where I always run into trouble.

PsiChick:HBK: PsiChick: My point here is that, in a dangerous situation, it is totally understandable to turn and stand your ground if you don't think you'll make it--and if you're discussing a seventeen-year-old male, they are not capable of realizing they are not superheroes anyway. So yes, what Martin did was reasonable--and in that situation, you might end up doing the same thing, because running doesn't always work.

Yeah, sometimes its hard to remember left foot, then right foot, then left foot again. Sometimes that right foot wants to do two in a row. That's where I always run into trouble.

seadoo2006:PsiChick: HBK: PsiChick: My point here is that, in a dangerous situation, it is totally understandable to turn and stand your ground if you don't think you'll make it--and if you're discussing a seventeen-year-old male, they are not capable of realizing they are not superheroes anyway. So yes, what Martin did was reasonable--and in that situation, you might end up doing the same thing, because running doesn't always work.

Yeah, sometimes its hard to remember left foot, then right foot, then left foot again. Sometimes that right foot wants to do two in a row. That's where I always run into trouble.